Back
2021 Supreme(J&K) 123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta, JJ.
State
Versus
Abdul Hamid and Anr.
CRAA 52/2007
Decided on 9.3.2021
Appearing Counsel:
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, G.A.
For the Respondent(s):Mr. K.M. Bhatti, Advocate
The importance of proper appreciation of evidence and the limited scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal.
Headnote:
Acquittal Appeal - Criminal - Sections 302/120-B/364/121/392/123/456/109 RPC and 4/27, 7/25 Arms Act - The court discussed the evidence and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal. The court emphasized the importance of proper appreciation of evidence and the limited scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with militants, kidnapped and killed three security personnel and committed other offenses. The trial Court acquitted the accused due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proper appreciation of evidence and the limited scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court was upheld.
Judgment
Sanjeev Kumar, J.—This Criminal Acquittal Appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 31.05.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in file No. 51/Sessions titled ‘State vs Abdul Hameed’ whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/120-B/364/121/392/123/456/109 RPC and 4/27, 7/25 Arms Act.
2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by the appellant in support of the appeal, it is necessary to notice brief resume of prosecution case.
3. On the basis of a written report lodged by the Commandant, 1st Bn. Draba, Poonch on 10.10.2000 alleging therein that three security personnel, namely Abdul Majid, Ghulam Mohd Shah and Abdul Rashid Dar, who were on guard duty at the residence of one Babu Khan, Block President, National Conference at Drogian, had been kidnapped by some unknown militants on the intervening night of 9/10th October, 2000 along with their arms and ammunitions, an FIR was registered in the Police Station Surankote. On the next day i.e. 11.10.2000, the dead bodies of all the three security personnel, kidnapped from the house of Babu Khan, were found near Chamrare Forest. The dead bodies were taken into possession by the police and their post mortem got conducted.
4. During the course of investigation, it was found that on 9th October, 2000, at 10 pm, the accused Abdul Hamid accompanying the militants of LeT under the leadership of Mohd Azam, a local militant, knocked at the door of the house of Babu Khan. On enquiry by the security personnel on duty, the accused disclosed his identity as Abdul Hamid and informed the security personnel that he had to deliver an important message. The door was opened by the security personnel and the accused along with other militants intruded in the house of Babu Khan. They kidnapped the aforesaid security personnel and also took away 12 bore gun and cash of Rs.150,000/- from the house of Babu Khan.
5. Upon completion of the investigation, the police found the allegations substantiated and presented the challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub-Judge), Surankote on 6th October, 2001 against the accused Abdul Hamid while Mohd Azam was proceeded under Section 512 CrPC. The learned Magistrate on the same day committed the case to trial Court.
6. With a view to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PWs Nisar Ahmed, Mohd Bashir, Mohd Din, Babu Khan, Parvez Ahmed, Kulwant Singh, Fazal Ahmed, Bahsir Ahmed Dar, Khaliq Hussain and Dr Mumtaz Hussain Shah. The incriminating circumstances, that had emerged in the prosecution evidence, were put to the accused and his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused Abdul Hamid denied all the charges and took the plea of false implication in the case. In his defence, he examined two witnesses, namely Feroz Khan and Lal Khan.
7. The trial Court, after hearing the prosecution and the defence and evaluating the evidence that had come on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the respondent/accused Abdul Hamid beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt and, as a result, acquitted him giving him the benefit of doubt. Feeling aggrieved, the State is in appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal passed in favour of respondent/accused No.1. The state in its appeal has also arrayed the accused Mohd Azam against whom the trial Court had proceeded under Section 512 Cr.PC, though he is yet to face the trial and get the verdict on the charge levelled against him. Respondent No.2 Mohd Azam, however, is stated to have died during the pendency of this appeal and, therefore, his being in the array of respondents in this appeal is of no significance. The impugned judgment has been assailed by the State, inter alia, on the following grounds:
(i) that the learned trial Court has misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence on record and has, without an
